G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1173 (15 August 2014)

G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1173 (15 August 2014)

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to take into account significant matters, including the lack of up-to-date information on E's wishes and feelings, insufficient evaluation of the long-term impact of the contact arrangements, inadequate assessment of the risks and practicalities (including social media), and an over-simplistic assumption about the possibility of resuming family contact if sibling contact failed. These omissions rendered the judicial analysis unsafe and required a rehearing before a different judge.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1173
Parties
Appellant Mother: JG; Appellant Father: KE; Appellant (sister): L; Respondent Local Authority: A County Council; Subject Child: E (child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court, Post Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed (on contact issue); matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge; s 34(4) orders set aside (except for the mother's, which remains from May 2012); no view expressed as to the eventual outcome.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Contact Orders, Adoption, Long Term Foster Care, Children Act 1989 S 34(4)
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Contact Orders Adoption Long Term Foster Care Children Act 1989 S 34(4)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JG

Appellant Mother

KE

Appellant Father

L

Appellant (sister)

A County Council

Respondent Local Authority

E (child)

Subject Child

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court, Post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in prioritising potential contact between E and her younger siblings (A and C) over direct contact with her birth family (father, L, and others)
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to adequately consider E's future wishes and feelings and the long-term impact of the contact arrangements
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to properly assess the risks and practicalities of contact, including via social media, and the possibility of re-establishing contact with the birth family if sibling contact failed

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge failed to take into account significant matters, including the lack of up-to-date information on E's wishes and feelings, insufficient evaluation of the long-term impact of the contact arrangements, inadequate assessment of the risks and practicalities (including social media), and an over-simplistic assumption about the possibility of resuming family contact if sibling contact failed. These omissions rendered the judicial analysis unsafe and required a rehearing before a different judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (on contact issue); matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge; s 34(4) orders set aside (except for the mother's, which remains from May 2012); no view expressed as to the eventual outcome.

Orders

  • Set aside s 34(4) orders made in November 2013 (except for the mother's May 2012 order)
  • Remit issue of contact for rehearing before a different judge